thinking.. a and a ness.. and thinking if we did life different.. how it soul mate ness might come to be expected.. like sharing is in the indigenous tribes Peter talks about.. ie: they don’t say thank you.. sharing is a given
thinking.. things like school.. mess with our a and a to such a degree (encouraging you to not be you.. encouraging you to not change your mind.. encouraging you to commit.. to the flag.. to the curriculum.. to the rules.. to the pkg deals.. to certainty..) that soul mate ness and marriage/ing and parent\ing are so very compromised..
from Tim Urban:
how to pick life partner part 1
marriage decision –
Society, in most parts of the world, doesn’t like when a relationship lasts too long. To society, a relationship is simply a testing ground—an incubator that prepares you for The Decision. And if too many years go by in a relationship without The Decision being made, society decides that something must be wrong. To help right the wrong, society will begin to apply pressure on the couple, from all angles.
voluntary compliance ness
Some people are bigger than society. Most of us are not. For most of us, society’s rules are our rules, and as you and your person walk down your blue balance beam, you can feel the walking space melt away around you. It’s time to make The Decision.
Your relationship needs to be converted into Everything Forever or Nothing Ever Again. Soon.
The typical human isn’t really equipped to make The Decision. We evolved to live short lives, during which life-altering 60-year commitments weren’t a thing. We evolved in small communities without nearly as many available options. And most of us, when presented with The Decision, have relatively little relationship experience and an incomplete understanding of our own adult selves—selves that in many cases only recently started existing.
But society doesn’t care. So you decide.
via Jennifer share on fb:
In a wiser, more self-aware society than our own, a standard question on any early dinner date would be: “And how are you crazy?”
The prestige of instinct is the traumatized reaction against too many centuries of unreasonable reason.
How logical, then, that we should as grown-ups find ourselves rejecting certain candidates for marriage not because they are wrong but because they are too right — too balanced, mature, understanding and reliable — given that in our hearts, such rightness feels foreign. We marry the wrong people because we don’t associate being loved with feeling happy.
We make mistakes, too, because we are so lonely. No one can be in an optimal frame of mind to choose a partner when remaining single feels unbearable.
Indeed, marriage tends decisively to move us onto another, very different and more administrative plane,
Rather than some notional idea of perfect complementarity, it is the capacity to tolerate differences with generosity that is the true marker of the “not overly wrong” person. Compatibility is an achievement of love; it must not be its precondition.
shared by Kosta on fb – via school of life – how we marry wrong person:
One: We don’t understand ourselves
All of us are crazy in very particular ways. We’re distinctively neurotic, unbalanced and immature, but don’t know quite the details because no one ever encourages us too hard to find them out. An urgent, primary task of any lover is therefore to get a handle on the specific ways in which they are mad. They have to get up to speed on their individual neuroses. They have to grasp where these have come from, what they make them do – and most importantly, what sort of people either provoke or assuage them. A good partnership is not so much one between two healthy people (there aren’t many of these on the planet), it’s one between two demented people who have had the skill or luck to find a non-threatening conscious accommodation between their relative insanities.
authenticity… eudaimonia ness
A standard question on any early dinner date should be quite simply: ‘And how are you mad?’
Two: We don’t understand other people
In the absence of all this, we are led – in large part – by what they look like. There seems to be so much information to be gleaned from their eyes, nose, shape of forehead, distribution of freckles, smiles… But this is about as wise as thinking that a photograph of the outside of a power station can tell us everything we need to know about nuclear fission.
The level of knowledge we need for a marriage to work is higher than our society is prepared to countenance, recognise and accommodate for – and therefore our social practices around getting married are deeply wrong.
a nother way – getting at a and a
Three: We aren’t used to being happy
We marry the wrong people because the right ones feel wrong – undeserved; because we have no experience of health, because we don’t ultimately associate being loved with feeling satisfied.
Four: Being single is so awful
One is never in a good frame of mind to choose a partner rationally when remaining single is unbearable.
Far better to rearrange society so that it resembles a university or a kibbutz – with communal eating, shared facilities, constant parties and free sexual mingling… That way, anyone who did decide marriage was for them would be sure they were doing it for the positives of coupledom rather than as an escape from the negatives of singlehood.
Five: Instinct has too much prestige
Six: We don’t go to Schools of Love
Seven: We want to freeze happiness
Eight: We believe we are special
Nine: We want to stop thinking about Love
from Adam Tanner‘s what stays in vegas.. and the ridiculousness of our docs..
they pay $60, provide their birth dates and places of birth, address, parents’ names (including mothers’ maiden names), the parents’ places of birth, details about any previous marriages, and social security numbers…. everyone goes thru same process… after wedding.. presiding official has ten days to send the marriage cert to the clark county recorder’s office, which scans the doc and enters the data.. if the couple ends up buying property, the recorder’s office logs those details, as well as liens, court judgments, financing, and other relevant docs..
dang.. what are relevant docs..? not any of the above..
marriage\ing ness – we’re so crazy..
all of the personal info captured in this process is public. anyone can see it, record it, and pass it on or sell it to others and that’s exactly what a handful of individuals such as marc hall do. they spend their days trolling thru public computers at the clark county recorder’s office hunting down info to sell to others such as banks and title companies…… ie: an alarm installation business pays him $35 a day to gather the latest home purchase registrations. he types in up to 200 new registrations a day, recording them as soon as they are posted. speed is important because a homeowners ill buy only one alarm system. …. another co pays hall %40 a case to research a property’s history, including liens, judgments, mortgages, and tax info. co’s might use such info to refinance lans, for ie? clark co places summary info from many of its public dos online, but not the actual docs. hall’s value comes from extracting details from the scanned copies of the original docs, which may contain ssn (in more recent docs these are redacted from public view), dates of birth, and fuller details. co’s doing background searches on potential hires ask him to check court records about people, earning him anywhere from $4 to $10 per person….. he makes anywhere from 80 000 to 150 000 a year. …
until the internet era, people who wanted to see marriage licenses or other public docs would have to go in person to a govt office and apply to see a specific doc. after a wait of some minutes, the visitor would peruse the papers in a reception area under the watchful eye of a dept employee. copying pages was expensive at $1 a page.
the girl who looked in the mirror – and said – i have home
We try to get together with people who don’t really suit us, because we don’t understand our needs
know someone else/rhythm
fb share by flow genome project
This level of concentration cannot be achieved through any other natural stimulation. Our self-awareness is essentially gone in that moment…if stimulation proceeds for a longer length of time, the synchronization spreads throughout the brain enabling us to become more focused than ever.
The desire for a deeper connection provides further proof to our obsession to know more about how the functions of sex affect our connectedness with self, and others.
The study revealed a common theme: sexual climax, seizures, music, and dance all flood the brain’s sensory channels with rhythmic inputs. Dr. Safron believes that because sexual activity is so similar to music and dance, the rhythm-keeping ability may serve as a test of fitness for potential mates.
15 minutes. The result is said to be therapeutic, rather than sexual. The “stroking” allegedly activates the limbic system and releases a flood of oxytocin.
actively engage in being present and release the pressure we allow society to instil within us.
ie: perhaps the 80 yr old photo.. is from people who were 1\lucky in the finding 2\lucky in their eudaimonia
via Maria – kahlil gibran on difficult balance of intimacy and independence
Love one another but make not a bond of love: let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
“What’s the use of falling in love if you both remain inertly as-you-were?” Mary McCarthy asked her friend Hannah Arendt in their correspondence about love. The question resonates because it speaks to a central necessity of love — at its truest and most potent, love invariably does change us, deconditioning our painful pathologies and elevating us toward our highest human potential.
When lovers are expected to fuse together so closely and completely, mutuality mutates into a paralyzing codependence — a calcified and rigid firmness that becomes brittle to the possibility of growth. In the most nourishing kind of love, the communion of togetherness coexists with an integrity of individuality, the two aspects always in dynamic and fluid dialogue.
Let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.
Love one another but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other’s cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.
Give your hearts, but not into each other’s keeping.
For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.
And stand together, yet not too near together:
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.
safe place to fall apart
What we talk about as “getting divorced” is often merely the last stage, the legal one. Before that, there have been many other divorces.
why/how have we decided relationships fall under legal/financial terms/regs/defns…? this.. thinking.. much worse than divorce ness.. crippling us.. blinding us
rabbi shmuley boteach on cheating
“I’ve always known our relation was permanent,” Haskell would later reflect on the decision. “I wanted continuity of conscious togetherness.” This notion, arising from the enormous magnanimity of her nonpossessive love, would eventually lead Gibran to his superb and timeless advice on healthy relationships.
I feel so lonely when I *stand alone before a great work of art. Even in Heaven one must have a beloved companion in order to enjoy it fully.
or *when the world weeps/dies..
God lends me His heart to love you with. I asked for it when I found my own was too small, and it really holds you, and leaves you room to grow.
In the spring, Haskell writes to Gibran in New York, channeling her unselfish love and her longing in parallel in a letter that could well be a poem:
What are you writing — and how does it go? And what are you thinking about — and how does it go? And what do you want to talk with me about? — and how do You go?
And why aren’t your arms six hours long to reach to Boston?
And when will You come to me in a dream and make night sweeter than night?
That October, Gibran repays the “continuity of conscious togetherness” that Haskell had always trusted would bloom between them even though, and perhaps precisely because, they chose not to marry:
The most wonderful thing, Mary, is that you and I are always walking together, hand in hand, in a strangely beautiful world, unknown to other people. We both stretch one hand to receive from Life — and Life is generous indeed.
I love to be silent with you, Mary.
Bill Moyers talks to sociologist Anne Wortham about the true meaning of individualism and personal authenticity brainpickings.org/2017/02/02/ann…
‘If..for us to love..must be something closer to our view..our grand scheme..then our own obligation to him is simply not to love him’
course at nyu – love actually – megan: the course i wished i could have taken
Letter Seven of Rilke’s Letters to a Young Poet is a beautiful summation of two different forms of love: immature love and mature love. As Rilke sees it, in immature love, there’s a merger that happens, a fusion where you don’t know where you end and the other person begins. You see this in new relationships sometimes where one partner says, “I want to do what you want to do,” and you get the sense that they’ve forfeited their own identity somehow. In the letter, this is contrasted with mature love where there’s an ability to be in the self and at the same time be with another. What Fromm calls “standing in love” as opposed to “falling in love’.
That’s one of the things that The Art of Loving really emphasizes: that to love well, you need to be present.
We look at parent-infant love; friendship; self-love; love of things (our passions); love between a mentor and a student or the kind of love that can exist in therapy – a kind of loving, holding environment that allows the person to self-actualise. A big part of the class is expanding students’ ideas of what love is and what’s contained inside that concept. Romantic love gets its air time, too.
. I think our human nature is to love and it’s much larger than just reproducing ourselves.
the inability of most ju/’hoansi on the farms to freely hunt larger game left a chasm in their lives, one for which there was no obvious substitute if they didn’t have a job. many filled the vacuum w alcohol, which at least provided them an opp to vent their frustrations. hunting was much more than a means of providing nutrition among foraging ju/’hoansi. it animated men’s relationships with the world around them, gave them purpose, and imbued the cosmos w a sensate touch of the real. the meat it provided not only filled th ju/’hoansi’s bellies and gave them strength, it created a visceral sense of pleasure so profound that they insisted it was the glue that bound men and women together in love. for where the farmers sanctified their marriages w rings and promises of fidelity, ju/’hoansi sanctified their unions w meat
love cannot be legalized. love and law are contradictory phenomena
1:12 – posey: i want to get married.. i want to know that someone loves me lady: marriage is a contract.. but to feel love is something else entirely
AJ+ (@ajplus) tweeted at 5:28 PM – 12 Oct 2017 :
20,000 girls become child brides every single day. https://t.co/0WtPs3dxx0 (http://twitter.com/ajplus/status/918619311081537536?s=17)
Wafa’ Babsail (@WafiBsail) tweeted at 5:31 PM – 12 Oct 2017 :
@ajplus Can you also not forget the boys under 18 who are sometimes also forced to marry those girls? It’s wrong no matter what (http://twitter.com/WafiBsail/status/918620165096595456?s=17)
Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) tweeted at 9:45 AM on Fri, Jun 01, 2018:
This girl, Dawn Tyree, was married at 13 in Texas to her 32-year-old rapist. The US denounces child marriage abroad, but at home 49 states still allow child brides. (Delaware just became the first state to ban all child marriage; 49 to go). My column https://t.co/m3aSG2uciB https://t.co/B69C03X3yC
47 min doc – lebanon: single by choice
nazir afzal (@nazirafzal) tweeted at 5:33 AM – 15 Jul 2018 :
Having prosecuted these gangs when others didn’t, religion was the last thing on rapists mind
This is selective bigotry
History tells us Early Marriage was the norm:
King John married 11 yr old
Many Biblical Prophets married pre-teen,
In USA you could marry 7 yr olds till 1920 https://t.co/7EydcQGPQy (http://twitter.com/nazirafzal/status/1018458648232779777?s=17)
Dr Fern Riddell (@FernRiddell) tweeted at 4:24 AM – 25 Jul 2018 :
This is absolutely utterly fucking nuts. I’ve been reading about this case for ages and I cannot believe we force people to stay together when one of them desperately wants to leave. https://t.co/k7a9KOLHL3 (http://twitter.com/FernRiddell/status/1022065030450348032?s=17)
Maria Popova (@brainpicker) tweeted at 6:01 AM – 26 Sep 2018 :
“Nothing locks people in error as much as the daily repetition of error.”
How to break up with integrity—Rilke on unwounding separation and the difficult art of recalibrating broken relationships https://t.co/xhgbexvhxk https://t.co/213rb1D2tV (http://twitter.com/brainpicker/status/1044919775405707265?s=17)
When collapse does happen — when intimacy is severed by some disorienting swirl of chance and choice — the measure of a love is whether and to what extent the kernel of connection can be salvaged as the shell cracks, how willing each partner is to remain openhearted while brokenhearted, how much mutual care and kindness the two who have loved each other can extend in the almost superhuman endeavor of the redeeming closeness after separation.
The day after Christmas 1921, nearly two decades after he asserted that “for one human being to love another… is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks… the work for which all other work is but preparation,”
There is a symmetry, both sad and beautiful, between Rilke’s faith in the redemptive power of distance in saving love after a breakup and his insistence that “the highest task of a bond between two people [is] that each should stand guard over the solitude of the other” — as within romance, so beyond romance.
will and jada
from part 2 video:
19 min – the thing that everybody is looking for.. is not found in trapping each other in vows.. releasing each other from obligations and expectations have made all the moments blissful
emerson: ‘marriage should be a temp relation, ti should have its natural birth, climax and decay, w/o violence of any kind – violence to bind or violence to rend. when each of two souls had exhausted the other of that good which each held for the other, they should part in the same peace in which they met, not parting form each other, but drawn to new society. the new love is the balm to prevent a wound from forming where the old love was detached.
vishen lakhiani on unwedding – 6 min video – An Alternative to Painful Divorce, How to Consciously Uncouple
why love hurts – The Sociology of How Our Institutions Rather Than Our Personal Psychological Failings Shape the Romantic Agony of Modern Life – Eva Illouz (and maria)
When relationships do get formed, agonies do not fade away, as one may feel bored, anxious, or angry in them; have painful arguments and conflicts; or, finally, go through the confusion, self-doubts, and depression of break-ups or divorces…. Despite the widespread and almost collective character of these experiences, our culture insists they are the result of faulty or insufficiently mature psyches.
The rise of clinical psychology in the twentieth century only solidified and granted scientific legitimacy to this notion that our romantic misery is a function of our psychological failings — an idea that caught on in large part because implicit to it was the promise that those failings can be deconditioned. And yet, Illouz argues, such overemphasis on individual shortcomings gravely warps the broader reality — a reality in which the systems, institutions, and social contracts that govern our existence seed the core ambivalence of love and life: what we really want.
In the same way that at the end of the nineteenth century it was radical to claim that poverty was the result not of dubious morality or weak character, but of systematic economic exploitation, it is now urgent to claim not that the failures of our private lives are the result of weak psyches, but rather that the vagaries and miseries of our emotional life are shaped by institutional arrangements… What is wrong are not dysfunctional childhoods or insufficiently self-aware psyches, but the set of social and cultural tensions and contradictions that have come to structure modern selves and identities.
[Love] is shaped and produced by concrete social relations [and] circulates in a marketplace of unequal competing actors… Some people command greater capacity to define the terms in which they are loved than others.
love was highly seductive precisely because it concealed as it beautified the deep inequalities at the heart of gender relationships.
when home is not home .. from school of life: https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/when-home-is-not-home/
mix of resonations..
Though this is where we lay our head every night, we are not especially understood here.
Confusingly, even very imperfect homes can feel better than the wilderness and desolation beyond, which is why we often stay around far longer than we should. But it is, in the long term, impossible to still the insistent voice inside us, the voice that reminds us that time is short and that we are dying inside a little more each day that we remain. There may be nothing and no one waiting for us out there and yet we know that we have to step out in order to try to find certain kinds of emotional nourishment that we should – ultimately – rather die fighting for than give up on.
perhaps we are in a relationship and have slowly despaired that our partner will ever appreciate certain ideas that matter profoundly to us.
It shouldn’t surprise us that so many of us don’t fit our homes; we never consciously chose them. We inherited them or stumbled into them, we fell into them by accident when we were too young to understand ourselves and others – and lacked the inner steel to hold out for what we would actually have required. Now the challenge is to make a home in a more conscious way: to choose the values we want to prevail in our sanctum and the people with whom we’ll have a chance of genuine understanding.
We need a lot of courage to make ourselves voluntarily homeless, to say, I am on the road, not because there was nowhere I could stay, and no one who I could have been with,
but because those places and those people that were available betrayed what should rightly belong to the word home.
The person who is good in bed isn’t the one who knows how to articulate themselves rhythmically for extended periods: it’s the person who encourages, endorses and legitimates our secret lonely selves at the same time as being very aware of, and honest about, their own private wishes and enthusiasms. It’s about a mutual nakedness of the mind, made possible through trust.
same day as this:
I hold this to be the highest task of a bond between two people: that each should stand guard over the solitude of the other. For, if it lies in the nature of indifference and of the crowd to recognize no solitude, then love and friendship are there for the purpose of continually providing the opportunity for solitude. And only those are the true sharings which rhythmically interrupt periods of deep isolation.
once the realization is accepted that even between the closest human beings infinite distances continue to exist, a wonderful living side by side can grow up, if they succeed in loving the distance between them which makes it possible for each to see the other whole
All companionship can consist only in the strengthening of two neighboring solitudes, whereas everything that one is wont to call giving oneself is by nature harmful to companionship: for when a person abandons himself, he is no longer anything, and when two people both give themselves up in order to come close to each other, there is no longer any ground beneath them and their being together is a continual falling… Once there is disunity between them, the confusion grows with every day; neither of the two has anything unbroken, pure, and unspoiled about him any longer… They who wanted to do each other good are now handling one another in an imperious and intolerant manner, and in the struggle somehow to get out of their untenable and unbearable state of confusion, they commit the greatest fault that can happen to human relationships: they become impatient. They hurry to a conclusion; to come, as they believe, to a final decision, they try once and for all to establish their relationship, whose surprising changes have frightened them, in order to remain the same now and forever (as they say).
There are such relationships which must be a very great, almost unbearable happiness, but they can occur only between very rich natures and between those who, each for himself, are richly ordered and composed; they can unite only two wide, deep, individual worlds.
For one human being to love another: that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation.
nora bateson (@NoraBateson) tweeted at 3:29 AM on Sun, Dec 15, 2019:
What would you really want someone to promise you?
True love forever? No.
Ever increasing wealth & comfort? No.
Those rigid promises require compromising other contexts of life.
-that they would respond to life’s twists & turns with all of the integrity they could muster. Yes.
from stephen seamands ministry
4\ marriage intimacy – closest union w/o loss of uniqueness.. mike mason: ‘to get us out beyond our depth.. out of the shallows our own own secure egocentricity and into the dangerous and unpredictable depths of a real interpersonal encounter’.. best gift to children (and church) to love each other well
in most human econs, money is used first/foremost to arrange marriages.. simplest and probably most commons ways of doing this was by being presented as what used to be called ‘brideprice’
practice (seen as buying a woman for marriage) caused something of a scandal.. by 1926 league of nations was debating banning practice as a form of slavery.. anthropologists objected.. really, they explained, this was nothing like the purchase of say an ox.. let alone a pair of sandals..
it’s a way of rearranging relations between people.. if he’s buying anything.. it’s the right to call her offspring his own.. everyone at time insisted that a proper marriage should take the form of an exchange of sisters..
marriage was referred to as ‘taking possession’ of a woman, the same word one would uses for the seizure of goods.. in principle, a wife, once possessed, owed her husband strict obedience, and often could not seek a divorce even in cases of physical abuse..
Frida Kahlo told her husband, “I’m not asking you to kiss me, nor apologize to me when I think you’re wrong. I won’t even ask you to hug me when I need it most. I don’t ask you to tell me how beautiful I am, even if it’s a lie, nor write me anything beautiful. I won’t even ask you to call me to tell me how your day went, nor tell me you miss me. I won’t ask you to thank me for everything I do for you, nor to care about me when my soul is down, and of course, I won’t ask you to support me in my decisions. I won’t even ask you to listen to me when I have a thousand stories to tell you. I won’t ask you to do anything, not even be by my side forever. Because if I have to ask you, I don’t want it anymore.”
from emma goldman’s anarchism and other essays:
11 – marriage and love
THE popular notion about marriage and love is that they are synonymous, that they spring from the same motives, and cover the same human needs. Like most popular notions this also rests not on actual facts, but on superstition.
Marriage and love have nothing in common; they are as far apart as the poles; are, in fact, antagonistic to each other. No doubt some marriages have been the result of love. Not, however, because love could assert itself only in marriage; much rather is it because few people can completely outgrow a convention. There are to-day large numbers of men and women to whom marriage is naught but a farce, but who submit to it for the sake of public opinion. At any rate, while it is true that some marriages are based on love, and while it is equally true that in some cases love continues in married life, I maintain that it does so regardless of marriage, and not because of it.
On the other hand, it is utterly false that love results from marriage. On rare occasions one does hear of a miraculous case of a married couple falling in love after marriage, but on close examination it will be found that it is a mere adjustment to the inevitable. Certainly the growing-used to each other is far away from the spontaneity, the intensity, and beauty of love, without which the intimacy of marriage must prove degrading to both the woman and the man.
Marriage is primarily an economic arrangement, an insurance pact. It differs from the ordinary life insurance agreement only in that it is more binding, more exacting. Its returns are insignificantly small compared with the investments. In taking out an insurance policy one pays for it in dollars and cents, always at liberty to discontinue payments. If, however, woman’s premium is a husband, she pays for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect, her very life, “until death doth part.” Moreover, the marriage insurance condemns her to life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individual as well as social. Man, too, pays his toll, but as his sphere is wider, marriage does not limit him as much as woman. He feels his chains more in an economic sense.
From infancy, almost, the average girl is told that marriage is her ultimate goal; therefore her training and education must be directed towards that end. Like the mute beast fattened for slaughter, she is prepared for that. Yet, strange to say, she is allowed to know much less about her function as wife and mother than the ordinary artisan of his trade. It is indecent and filthy for a respectable girl to know anything of the marital relation. Oh, for the inconsistency of respectability, that needs the marriage vow to turn something which is filthy into the purest and most sacred arrangement that none dare question or criticize. Yet that is exactly the attitude of the average upholder of marriage. The prospective wife and mother is kept in complete ignorance of her only asset in the competitive field — sex. Thus she enters into life-long relations with a man only to find herself shocked, repelled, outraged beyond measure by the most natural and healthy instinct, sex. It is safe to say that a large percentage of the unhappiness, misery, distress, and physical suffering of matrimony is due to the criminal ignorance in sex matters that is being extolled as a great virtue. Nor is it at all an exaggeration when I say that more than one home has been broken up because of this deplorable fact.
It is like that other paternal arrangement — capitalism. It robs man of his birthright, stunts his growth, poisons his body, keeps him in ignorance, in poverty and dependence, and then institutes charities that thrive on the last vestige of man’s self-respect… The institution of marriage makes a parasite of woman, an absolute dependent. It incapacitates her for life’s struggle, annihilates her social consciousness, paralyzes her imagination, and then imposes its gracious protection, which is in reality a snare, a travesty on human character.
c like marriage
Love needs no protection; it is its own protection. So long as love begets life no child is deserted, or hungry, or famished for the want of affection. I know this to be true. I know women who became mothers in freedom by the men they loved. Few children in wedlock enjoy the care, the protection, the devotion free motherhood is capable of bestowing.
The defenders of authority dread the advent of a free motherhood, lest it will rob them of their prey. Who would fight wars? Who would create wealth? Who would make the policeman, the jailer, if woman were to refuse the indiscriminate breeding of children? The race, the race! shouts the king, the president, the capitalist, the priest. The race must be preserved, though woman be degraded to a mere machine, — and the marriage institution is our only safety valve against the pernicious sex-awakening of woman. But in vain these frantic efforts to maintain a state of bondage. In vain, too, the edicts of the Church, the mad attacks of rulers, in vain even the arm of the law. Woman no longer wants to be a party to the production of a race of sickly, feeble, decrepit, wretched human beings, who have neither the strength nor moral courage to throw off the yoke of poverty and slavery. Instead she desires fewer and better children, begotten and reared in love and through free choice; not by compulsion, as marriage imposes. Our pseudo-moralists have yet to learn the deep sense of responsibility toward the child, that love in freedom has awakened in the breast of woman. Rather would she forego forever the glory of motherhood than bring forth life in an atmosphere that breathes only destruction and death. And if she does become a mother, it is to give to the child the deepest and best her being can yield. To grow with the child is her motto; she knows that in that manner alone can she help build true manhood and womanhood.
from peter marshall’s demanding the impossible:
With the abolition of private property, there will no longer be any marriage; love will then be more beautiful and wonderful.
begs imagine if we ness